Legal Opinion

King v. Simons Brick Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 9, 1942No. Civ. 13533PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.

The question for determination in this case is whether under the doctrine of attractive nuisance the father of a twelve-year-old boy who has been drowned in a body of opaque water in a clay pit dug by defendant on its own adjacent to a populous area, may recover for the loss of his child who played in the pool.

In substance the facts alleged in the amended complaint are that the defendant, a brick and tile manufacturer in the city of Santa Monica, caused the soil and clay to be removed from a portion of its property, leaving a huge pit of about four acres in area; that within five years prior…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Peters v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Beeson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Melendez v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Faylor v. Great Eastern Quicksilver Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Sanchez v. East Contra Costa Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. WillsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. King v. LennenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Demmer v. City of EurekaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Ward v. Oakley Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Bass v. Quinn-Robbins Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1950

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API